- Play War Thunder for FREE! Support my channel and get a premium aircraft, tank or ship and a three day account upgrade as a BONUS: gjn.link/RedEffectWarThunder Also available for free on PlayStation®4 and Xbox One.

@matthijsgeutjes5238

4 жыл бұрын

RedEffect just stop making these misinformed videos. You absolutely have no clue what you are talking about. I was a tankcommander on the leo2 A4/5/6. ( you do not have to believe me, but it is the truth) but you are so clueless on tanks...... on russian and Nato tanks btw.

@aniruthanrt1978

4 жыл бұрын

@FunnYfucker Aintyou soon coz watch this video kzread.info/dash/bejne/f3uTrquBqsK5dLQ.html

@tomleake8227

4 жыл бұрын

Yo redeffect do you want a sponsorship from me and the people I work for. If so please reply.

@davidleube8884

4 жыл бұрын

Hey RedEffect play war thunder

@fuzzyblood2412

4 жыл бұрын

@@davidleube8884 hello do you play war thunder?

I was in the U.S. Army and served on the M1A1 in the early 90s. My father, stepfather and 3 of 4 uncles all served on the M60 series before me. The M60, and the other American vehicles of that generation were intended (I'm using the word "intended" here very specifically in place of "designed,") to be used as part of a multi-layered defensive doctrine against the Red Army. It was envisioned that these vehicles (M60 MBTs, ATGM tank destroyers based on M60s and M113s) would be dug into heavily prepared positions in depth, and backed with mechanized infantry formations, heavy artillery and air superiority capable of nullifying things like the Mi-24 series attack chopper. The mobile screening and counterattack formations were mainly composed of vehicles like the M551 Sheridan cavalry vehicle. Does this make the M60 a "defensive" vehicle? No, not really. However, that generation of western armor was intended to be used defensively, even if they weren't specifically designed that way. The M1 series was different though. The tank was very intentionally designed with the defense of western Europe in mind. The idea was exactly as I already described (defense in depth, etc.) as the US Army in Europe fell back through a series of defensive lines in the face of the Soviet advance, with the specific objective of buying time for the massive REFORGER (REturn of FOrces to GERmany,) operation to sea and airlift all available military forces from the continental US to Europe. Once there, both the retreating tank formations and the newly arrived reinforcements would turn and begin to advance as quickly as possible, smashing through what would now be exhausted Soviet tank armies, and pushing into eastern Europe with the aim of forcing the Soviets to accept a ceasefire and peace negotiations. In order to facilitate this doctrine, the M1 series need to be able to move very quickly as it retreated to new defensive positions that were being built by engineers even as the current front line was just a few kilometers away. The turret needed to be near-impenetrable at reasonable distances since, in most cases, it would be the only part of the tank exposed to enemy fire. The gun (and the crew serving it) needed to be able to one-shot kill any enemy vehicle, since the Red Army had an extreme numerical advantage. The sensors, optics and ballistic computer needed to be able to sort, prioritize and kill enemy vehicles in a situation which presented an over-saturated target environment (Red Army numbers advantage, again.) Finally, the vehicle needed the speed, range and off-road capability to sustain a massive surge to the east as NATO forces finally turned and began to punch toward Moscow. All of our training involved being outnumbered (we trained 1 tank vs a company, 4 tanks vs a battalion, and 12 tanks vs a brigade) firing on the move, maneuvering and fighting at night (at the time, Soviet anti-tank weaponry was very reliant on IR tech and thus night gave us a heavy advantage against them,) and being able to sustain a fire rate (with a crew loaded weapon) of 15 rounds per minute with the 120mm main gun. So, is the M1 a defensive tank, since it was designed to defend Europe from the Red Army? Or is the M1 an offensive tank, since part of that defense involved a massive armored offensive? The answer is...yes.

@BoarVessel-BCEtruscanCer-xy7et

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks for taking the time to write this out - a pretty interesting read!

@MykolaSternenkoDroneBoyHoleMan

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you for amazing post. I also love to read Russian operational tactics and strategies for the cold war going hot. Soviet Operation Maneuver Group (OMG) and it's derivatives were very similiar to blitzkrieg and required localised Soviet numeric superity to be used as "injection" to use paths of least resistance. Any "hardpoints" had to be avoided or simply tied down, so I do believe NATO would be forced to counter attack as well, especially due to midsection of Russian forces and their reliance on heavy long range artillery to deal with defending positions. Russians did had extensive AA umbrella so boots on the ground were deciding factor for both sides. NATO forces and particularly US were thinking about implementation of swarming tactics to counter Soviet mobile groups of mechanised forces to stabilise the front. Russians had so many interesting solutions as well - unlike the myth about human wave tactics. But I do believe in real life everything would be just a messy meat grinder for all involved as all the planning goes through the window when unpredictable happens. I think both sides would have resorted to tactical nuclear strikes as almost through all cold it was immovable object meeting unstoppable force.

@rawkmode6315

4 жыл бұрын

@@MykolaSternenkoDroneBoyHoleMan Good points. I'd like to clarify though that I didn't mean to suggest that the Red Army would use human wave tactics. The Soviets actually pioneered all modern combined arms tactics currently in use today, both in theory and practice. All of the US Army combined arms doctrines were developed by reading and directly copying over Soviet tactics, with changes made to allow for the differences in East-West culture and the various necessities required by having different military objectives. Differences in tank design are a great example of this. Soviet armor doctrine calls for all vehicles to be built with some ability to ford various waterways under fire (which is why so many Soviet vehicles have that "boat on tracks" look to them,) whereas NATO vehicles typically were designed with the assumption that during the most critical phase of battle (the defense in depth delaying action) that bridges behind them (leading west) would still be intact, allowing other elements of the vehicle to be emphasized. Likewise, the turret design of Soviet and NATO vehicles also show this kind of phenomenon. The Red Army used short term conscription which made dependence on a highly skilled loader somewhat implausible, thus making auto-loaders more desirable. The turret itself could also be made small, cramped and less lightly armored (both for reasons of expense and in order to create a smaller target profile,) since most Soviet conscripts would have thought that the sacrifice of personal comfort and safety normal given the general level of Soviet patriotism and comradeship. NATO troops in general (and US vehicle crews in particular,) would have balked at tiny, less safe turrets that omitted a crucial crew member (who now was not around to assist with maintenance or security duty,) given the breathtaking extent of post-WW2 American prosperity. Basically what I'm trying to get at here is that there are good reasons why NATO vehicles were designed the way they were, and there were good reasons why Soviet vehicles were designed the way that they were. Comparing one against the other while trying to determine what is better is a silly non-argument when one disregards the underlying doctrine and cultural norms that created the vehicles in question. ...of course, you weren't really arguing any of that, but I started typing, went off on a tangent, and couldn't stop myself. Sorry for the long ass response :)

@andrewwoodhead3141

4 жыл бұрын

You make a good case but I fear you are wasting your efforts on this site, Sir.

@diyar5184

4 жыл бұрын

@@rawkmode6315 you offer a really interesting perspective, I could read texts like this all day!

There is one tank you can defenetly tell its made for defense: Strv. 103

@rako5865

4 жыл бұрын

It's not though. From what i've heard, it was made for survivability/protection, rather than defense.

@thefruitdealer4970

4 жыл бұрын

@@rako5865 It was made for defense, specifically a sort of "run and gun"-defense. 1. Dig in behind bush and wait for russians 2. Russians appear 3. Shoot 1 or 2 of them 4. Speed away backwards (hence the Strv 103s amazing reverse speed) 5. Find new position behind new bush 6. Repeat step one

@rako5865

4 жыл бұрын

@@thefruitdealer4970 Trots sin utformning var Stridsvagn 103 avsedd för anfallsstrid. Den svenska arméns pansarbrigader (PB 63), där Stridsvagn 103 ingick, var anfallsbrigader med uppgift att gå till motanfall mot fientliga brohuvuden och luftlandsättningar. From swedish wikipedia. Translates to; Despite it's design, Strv 103 was intended for offensive fighting. The armored brigades it was a part of had the task of counter-attacking enemy bridgeheads and enemy airborne troops/airdrops/paratroopers.

@shadowdemon553

4 жыл бұрын

Rako so your saying a tank with no ability to shoot on the move (because it has no gun movement and stabilizer) has the potential to be on the offensive, in order to set up the hydro pneumatic suspension, you have to go in a complete stop, flip a few switches and get the gun on target, that takes about 1-3 seconds to do, and in that time the enemy could just shoot it and take it out of the combat

@rako5865

4 жыл бұрын

@@shadowdemon553 I'm not super involved in technical aspects of tanks, but could many tanks during the 50s and 60s shoot accurately on the move? This is also from the wikipedia page: In 1967, Norway carried out a two-week comparative observation test with the Leopard 1 and found that, with closed hatches, the 103 spotted more targets and fired faster than the Leopard while the situation was reversed when operating with hatches open.

Not as defensive as the Arjun with its worlds fastest turret rotation that rotates so fast it hits the rounds away like baseball which is why baseball was invented by Arjun crew. This is why Arjun tank crew have to go through G force Bollywood training to not black out like US pilots do when they smoke the good stuff

@ishandangwal6701

4 жыл бұрын

Soooooo what's your point?

@m1a1abrams3

4 жыл бұрын

arjun is better than me low key

@stup1db4nana

4 жыл бұрын

@Dave Not just flying it can actually reach orbit all by itself

@Neeverseen

4 жыл бұрын

Complete bullshit, how is the barrel supposed to hit the projectile after it exited the barrel? Did you even read the paper on Arjun's centrifugal propelling capabilities? The turret goes with 2000 rpm. That means both "rounds" and "rotations" per minute. 2000x120mm projectiles pr minute, can you imagine that? Superpower 2020

@Fish-kz8xw

4 жыл бұрын

Arjun is a Gunship that shoots APFSDS hitting the turret roof then glitches into the floor causing it to fling.

Arjun is a defensive tank that is really an offensive tank. Offensively poor design.

@Veldtian1

4 жыл бұрын

Dah-dat Tsss.

@ary2407

4 жыл бұрын

don't start it again bro 😂

@hmeffect7117

4 жыл бұрын

Rj06

@meepy546

4 жыл бұрын

a weapon to surpass metal gear

@hmeffect7117

4 жыл бұрын

Wos. Bs

Hello. Tanker here. Overall, I agree with the ideas basic purpose: there are no 'defensive' tanks. However, this video relies a large amount on logical falacy: that a defensive tank cannot be used offensively, along with the idea a tank in defense will not move between engagements. Modern doctrine is to have multiple (3+) defensive positions per tank, all in a hull down position if possible, and to move between these during/between engagements. Modern offensive doctrine is a bit more applicable to countering this videos points, but even still there is a large emphasis on 'leapfrogging' between suitable defensive points on the offense, and most actual fighting, even on the offense is to occur in a hull down position. To sum it up: tanks are, yes, not defensive tanks, but instead designed more a doctrine built around hull down positions. This is part of why the turrets on many NATO tanks are so heavily armored frontally, and why many NATO tanks have 15-20 degrees of gun depression: they are intended to engage from behind ridgelines and in hull down positions, whether these be natural 'dead space' e.g. a depression in the ground, a desert wadi, etc, or man made, e.g. a dug hole. When these are unviable, either for physical or strategic reasons (such as a fast paced desert assault into Iraq), tanks rely more on speed, coordination within formations (which are a massive part in tank offensive warfare), and rapid engagement times. Turrets are, yes, the main thing targeted on a tank due to visibility, the video does get this right, it is not the preferred shot, with a 'center mass' shot actually being the main thing drilled into many NATO gunners, namely going for the autoloaders ammo carousel on the T-series of tanks, and, presumably, turret shots are drilled into Russian and Chinese gunners for NATO tanks, since that's where the fighting crew is, which would necessitate heavy armor on the turret to protect this crew. TL:DR, video, while partly correct, relies on defensive tanks being unable to be used offensively, and looks at tank design without looking at tank use.

@Hollycalvey

4 жыл бұрын

This ^ To say that tanks like the challenger 2 were not made to fit the defensive doctrine is just absolutely absurd. Claiming that a tank can not be designed for defense if it can also be used for offensive engagements? Catch a grip. Yes, these tanks were not made purely for defense and to never be on the offensive, but I don't think a single person has made that claim. They were designed to primarily work with the defensive doctrine, but also to work offensively as well.

@alexisbierquedebirkadefauv1744

4 жыл бұрын

@@Hollycalvey some people says that A few MBTs are designed only for Defense in mind, and other thinks that a few tanks are ONLY good in one departement And red effect is just here to beat those guys

@potatopants4691

4 жыл бұрын

Take STRV 103 as an extreme example - it is arguably best used in a defensive/ambush position awaiting the enemy; but swedish doctrine still had it performing all the necessary roles (including advancing and attacking) that a conventional tank would have taken.

@Hollycalvey

4 жыл бұрын

Alexis Bierque de Birka de Fauville well, no he isn’t. He starts off with that premise and then completely widens his stance to say that no modern tanks are even mainly suited toward defense (watch the part after the WT advertisement near the end). He straight up says that no modern tanks were primarily designed to be used defensively which is a complete fallacy. His arguments around the challenger II are complete fallacies as the challengers armor in particular was actually designed to be the way it was as it was projected to be hull down in the majority of engagements, later giving it armor packages for the lower glacis to be used in offensive operations before it had even been used in combat, so his argument of “they didn’t give it armor because they needed to save weight for the turret” is complete bullshit. He also (as the original comment said) completely disregarded tank doctrine, and has time after time demonstrated his complete lack of knowledge on it

@MrWiggo91

4 жыл бұрын

@@Hollycalvey Yeah I'm a Chally 2 crewman and whilst it does well in all aspects, it leans much better into defensive ops because that's what it was imagined it would be doing when it was designed and its characteristics reflect that

Strv 103: I'm a joke to you?

@Thekilleroftanks

3 жыл бұрын

or any japanese tank since the 1960s.

One big hole in your theory.... gun depression... and just because some tanks are designed to be defensive, it doesnt mean they would be static in defense... So, no, its not misinterpreted, you just did not understand the western tactics in the first place. NATO tanks that were fielded in 80ties were all designed with one thing in mind - to stop the Russian attack in Western Germany. They designed them so they performed exceptionally well in certain situations - fighting from cover was one of them. All these tanks kept good gun depression, had high reverse speed and high protection on turret front. THey were not meant to fight from single static position, but were supposed to have several firing positions and were supposed to move quickly between these and engage enemy quickly... thats why Abrams, and Leopard 2 both have reverse speed 32kph, while Russian tanks have it 4-12kph... (which bite them hard in Donbas btw, where slow reverse speed was one of main reason why tanks got killed - even if they survived first hit, they were unable to get out of that position without exposing weak side or rear amor... so enemy just shot them when they started to turn...)

@CreAlkalyn

4 жыл бұрын

Warning - TL;DR:) Frankly I don't think it is a question of Red not understanding the tactics. He is correct that claiming that modern western tanks are designed as "defensive" weapons is a gross oversimplification. However, at the same time I think it's quite obvious that these tanks have roots in machines that were originally designed in the 70s and 80s and that during that time western countries had a very well defined doctrine which strategically concentrated on the defence (russian tanks for example are generally lighter since they assumed they would constantly need to get over e.g. rivers and its easier to build a bridge for a 40t tank than for a 60t one). What I mean is that while current tanks are certainly not "defensive" (they are called MAIN battle tanks for a reason) they still do have a lot of features stemming from how the doctrine was structured in the past - these features are not a necessity for this doctrine but simply allow to maximize other features - like the issue of weak lower hull armour.

@JaM-R2TR4

4 жыл бұрын

@CrazzySquirrel My point is that being on defensive, it doesnt mean you are stationary... and defensive tank is also not a pillbox, but mobile... It just uses its design to be capable on defense - i have already mentioned some abilities - reverse speed, acceleration, gun depression... all these abilities are more important than what he usually promotes on these videos, where he tends to compare table values like maximum speed which is absolutely insignificant value...

@BigBrex0124

4 жыл бұрын

Ok boomer

@mamarussellthepie3995

4 жыл бұрын

yeah this shit is literally written in the doctrine of nato xd

@mamarussellthepie3995

4 жыл бұрын

@CrazzySquirrel also fuggn /by being better/ >laughs in technology advancing over time in a thing called an arms race xd

I think that sometimes a well armoured tank is assumed to be a defensive tank and this may have been true in the 60's and 70's and before that a well armoured tank was a 'breakthrough' or 'assault' tank but after that advances in the automotive field allowed previously unheard of weights to be hefted about the battlefield. The Chieftain is a case in point, designed at a time when hugely powerful but compact engines weren't available the British opted for gunpower, armour and mobility in that order, whether this was a defensive tank is open to interpretation, the Germans faced with a similar problem went with a mobility gunpower armour combination in their Leo 1's. Later on such brutal compromises became unnecessary as more and more hugely powerful power eggs became available until the point came where all tank operators had fast well armoured vehicles fitted with very similar guns. In short a point was reached where designers no longer had to compromise to such an extent.

@combatantezoteric2965

4 жыл бұрын

The ww2 panther has a better armour than the Leo 1 so I wouldn't use that term.

@antonrudenham3259

4 жыл бұрын

@@combatantezoteric2965 True, they did indeed have similar armour protection but the Leo also had a more powerful engine albeit not of the 80's 1000hp+ variety and was lighter than the Panther yet packed a far greater wallop.

@jeanmuyuela8112

4 жыл бұрын

that is still the case on challenger 2.. its fucking slow.

@helbent4

4 жыл бұрын

I was going to bring up the Chieftan as well. The biggest flaw with the idea of the "defensive tank" on either side is that pure defence was never a part (or at least a major part) of NATO or for that matter WTO strategic doctrine. Mobile and offensive operations were considered to be the decisive phase of any battle or war. Probably the only NATO combat vehicle that fit the bill for a defensive tank was not a tank at all, the Jagdpanzer Kanone (which lacked a turret). NATO did develop a defensive doctrine (Airland Battle) that would emphasise an aggressive, flexible, mobile ground defense in conjunction with air strikes on the attacker's rear aread. At least for the Americans, the tank that would carry this out was the M1 Abrams; not a "defensive" tank by any measure.

@koka1571

4 жыл бұрын

It really depends on the nations' doctrines; some may prefer to use MBT's purely for defensive purposes, or purely for offense.

I completely agree that modern MBT's can never be classified as a purely defensive tank. However, not to long ago several tanks were designed with a defensive function as part of their parameters. This was mostly as it was expected that a cold war turned hot would result in warfare very similar to WWII, with clear front lines. In this time we can for example look at the STRV-103, which was designed specificaly to defend (As is visible in the tank lacking a turret and also in many other characteristics, like the dozer blade being permenant and not a add-on like other contemperaries). Another tank in which the defensive role was deemed very important was the Chieftain. Speed was given a lesser priority over armor as it was expected the latter would be more important in the most likely conflict they would fight in (The cold war turned hot). This because it was expected they could slowly fall back while stalling the soviets long enough for reinforcements from the rest of Europe and the U.S. to arive in West-Germany. Of course this does not mean the tank is purely a defensive tank, but it does show that the idea of a 'defensive tank' is not as old as inferred in the video. Still, the modern idea of warfare has changed quite drastically since the time of Chieftain and the Swedish STRV-103, and thus the idea of a defensive tank became more and more outdated. Nowadays I will agree defensive tanks are not viable, with AT-Artillery being able to destroy all dug in tanks without to much trouble. Mobility and adaptability to a changing situation is exactly the reason why tanks can be so deadly on the modern battlefield and is why things like casemate tanks and towed AT-guns have become almost extinct in modern combat.

@Mattebubben

4 жыл бұрын

Strv 103 was not "designed specificaly to defend" though. (And the Doser was not "permanent" in fact initially only 1 tank per platoon was equipped with a Dozer blade it was only with the Strv 103C Upgrade in the 80s that it became standard on all tanks)) In Fact the Swedish Armored Brigades were seen as the Spearhead of the Swedish Army as they were the only units fully capable of conducting offensive action in the open (As the Infantry brigades lacked armored troop transports etc and as such were primarily defensive units) With the Main task of the Armored Brigades being to Crush enemy bridgeheads as quickly as possible (Such as Ports / Harbours or Airports etc) (Such as Ports / Harbours or Airports etc As it was well understood that the only way to "defeat" a Soviet attack without outside aid was to prevent them securing a foothold since once they got enough forces shore to secure that bridghead and the surrounding area the Swedish army would never be able to push them out without Nato assistance) And that mission fell to the Swedish Armored brigades. (And there was no destinction made between the Brigades equipped with the Strv 103 compared to those equipped with the Centurion, They were both intended to use the same tactics and perform the same missions) So the Swedish army would never have adopted the Strv 103 if it was a purely defensive tank (as that would have gone counter to the Swedish Armored doctrine) if you want to read more on the Topic there is plenty of Information on it tanks.mod16.org/2016/08/19/stridsvagn-103-was-not-a-tank-destroyer/ including from reports from the tests conducted with the Strv 103 by the British and the US. tanks.mod16.org/2015/03/03/report-from-british-evaluation-of-the-s-tank-1968/nggallery/image/141-jpg/ tanks.mod16.org/2015/04/02/report-from-british-strv-103-trials-at-the-baor-1973/ tanks.mod16.org/2016/09/17/stridsvagn-103-trials-in-the-us-1975-1976/

@MrJoe99998

4 жыл бұрын

@@Mattebubben Interesting, I had heard that the main tactic for STRV 103's was to dig a pit, wait for the enemy to arrive, shoot as many as possible untill the area became to hot and then use the high reverse speed to escape quickly. I read this in a tank museum, so they most definently fucked up somewhere. Thanks for the elaborate explanation! I learned something new thanks to you!

@nemisous83

4 жыл бұрын

@@Mattebubben STRV-103 "not a tank destroyer" that's a pretty good meme then explain why they chose to go with a turretless design which used an adjustable suspension when STRV-101 and STRV-81 where fully stabilized? While the STRV-103 could be used in offensive operations it was far from ideal largely because it's suspension controls weren't as ideal with tracking and accurately laying the gun on target in an advance as something like conventional turret which is why the Swedish didn't fully adopt the STRV-103 and retained the STRV-101 ( Cent mk10 ) Saying STRV-103 wasn't designed around defensive operations is just being disingenuous.

@REgamesplayer

4 жыл бұрын

@@Mattebubben I'm confused as to why some people feel an urge to defend something which is clearly a tank destroyer while arguing that it is no, really, a main battle tank.

@cosmoray9750

4 жыл бұрын

Hoax kzread.info/dash/bejne/k4l7ma6Riq-tdM4.html

So basically, "Its an MBT, it does all of it"

Stridsvagn S (The S tank) (Strv 103) was for the purpose of defending sweden and not to attack

@malcolmjohnson7980

4 жыл бұрын

Swedish Mgtow you could argue that the S Tank is not a true MBT but instead a SP anti tank gun/ tank destroyer. Not to distract from it,s brilliant design

@kirgan1000

3 жыл бұрын

Maybe it was lack of money to get a "proper" tank, but the Swedish doctrine was to use the armor in "attack at all cost" and cruch the USSR bridghead and win the war...

4:44 the driver lost a leg and his family sued the British military.

@1KosovoJeSrbija1

4 жыл бұрын

They sued the military for a soldier being injured?!?!?!?!?!

@thereyougoagain1280

4 жыл бұрын

Did they win? What happened? I didn’t think families could sue the military for things like that.

@krainex

4 жыл бұрын

@Pira Pira did any of them win the case?

@TrueChell

4 жыл бұрын

@Pira Pira Yeah! I remember these things also. Canadians had several of these cases as well. Like the one I bet you can still find from YT. Right after telling embedded reporter, IEDs where the biggest threat, they hopped into an unarmored G-wagon jeep and drove straight into one, killing everyone inside. And also equipped some soldiers with obsolete frag-vests with no plates. I swear. Some people making these decisions have no brain, and no soul.

@TrueChell

4 жыл бұрын

@@krainex Don't know about anywhere else. But they have won some of such cases in the US. Latest (sued by families) being the "poor quality parts for black hawks, case". Causing several crashes, injuries and deaths, just few years back.

Hi there. Good video, though my reaction to it initially was disagreement. The reason was because of how you use the term "Hull down". It does not mean dug in. :) In fact, to any modern or Cold War western tanker, including those who trained to fight the Warsaw Pact (like I did), a hull down position is one in which the enemy sees only the turret and the hull is down below whatever feature - usually a rise in the ground - the tank is behind. A "dug in" position is what you are describing as a hull down and is something I rarely trained to do. On the occasion we did, engineering vehicles would excavate the positions. And there would usually be two or more for a planned defence, a primary and a secondary. Normally though, for planned defences, we would survey our positions for hull down and then move back to a harbour or hide, coming forward only when called. Track plans and range cards were all part of defensive preparations, stuff most tank enthusiasts don't think about. :) There's a fair bit of training to master the art of going hull down, including preceding it with a turret down and then having the gunner guide the driver forward into a hull down position. All the best, from a Canadian Cold War armour soldier and War Thunder player. :)

the most entertaining part of these types of videos is all the people giving expert comments whilst basing their knowledge on computer games. awesome.

A defensive tank does exist if you look at the tank doctrines of different nations. The Swedish S tank, for example, was designed to defend the nation from foreign invasions, relying purely on the slope and the terrain. The NATO Cold War doctrines does also involve strategic retreats to slow the USSR's advance down instead of holding down their positions. This does show that the tank strategies are mainly defensive, and therefore it is only logical that the tanks of that era were designed in that way. RedEffect is also talking about the really modern few, that are only 5 or 6 models. He failed to mention the older tanks that were still in service in other nations completely, as well as their individual tank doctrines that where developed because of their political beliefs, or the local terrains.

I think the only tank that was completely designed as a defensive tool was the S-Tank or Strv 103 tanks. The Swedes specifically designed it for a defensive role. After the Strv 103 was retired, the Swedes went back to jack-of-all trades MBTs like the rest of the world.

Quit a 10.3 match just to watch this video.

@lechendary

4 жыл бұрын

In wt?

@mamarussellthepie3995

4 жыл бұрын

waste of time

@hanfpeter2822

4 жыл бұрын

Good. This Video provides more Entertainment

It would be pretty silly to design and produce a whole tank purely for defence, when some sandbags and a recoilless rifle could do basically the same job for a minuscule fraction of the cost.

defensive "tank" is just a bunker nowadays

Your general point stands IF we assume that someone is actually claiming that a tank was designed for defense only... which is highly unlikely. The description of NATO tanks as ''defensive'' doesn't mean that they are strictly relegated to that role, but that they are more fit for it, because of their 9 to 10 degrees of gun depression. And this isn't a mere assumption about the defensive advantages of NATO tanks, it was literally part of the US tank fighting doctrine, an example of which can be seen in this documentary: kzread.info/dash/bejne/lX6a2KuIcdaTYtI.html

@Astrokidd69

4 жыл бұрын

Ivan Matić In the game was thunder most of the casual population claims modern tanks are defensive because they don’t have the proportional armor as WW2 tanks...in other words, there is “indeed” a population of people who claim tanks are meant to be defensive.

@theoakatsuki

4 жыл бұрын

@Ivan your link is really informative

@theoakatsuki

4 жыл бұрын

@@Astrokidd69 you mean to say people are making opinions on tanks based on a game??

@mihaelvulchev7003

4 жыл бұрын

@@Astrokidd69 That's why is game. Filled with people who think they know something becuase they watch youtube videos in which people claim IS-2 knock out Tigers like nothing :D or just read " WIKI"" . 95 % of WT community i swear in god is somehow more incompetend even then World of Bulshitanks which is insane.

Tanks DO fight hull down, but that doesn’t equate to a defensive posture. I want to 1. add protection where possible & 2. expose as little of myself as possible. By being hull down I achieve both aims, and can also effectively bring fire on the enemy. Terrain is also used to obscure the enemies view of movement. One of the most important qualities of a commander is map reading, he puts the vehicle in the position to kill the enemy, the other 3 line the tank up for the kill.

People forget that AT guns exist, are cheaper, easier to conceal, it's easier to locate targets with them as you aren't in a box, they require way less maintenance, I could go on. If you wanted to fight a purely defensive war you probably wouldn't build many tanks. The same argument applies to modern AT weapons like rocket/atgm launchers.

@HMSNeptun

4 жыл бұрын

that is exactly why standalone 120mm smoothbore anti tank guns don't exist

@graniteamerican3547

4 жыл бұрын

are rockets and missiles really cheaper then guns?

@theduckthatsits

4 жыл бұрын

​@@graniteamerican3547 Probably not if you factor only the cost of the shells vs the rocket/missiles. But it ain't just the ammo, but the whole system. If you compare the cost of an entire tank + maintenance + training ect... vs a shoulder fire rocket/missile launcher, you could have dozens of the latter for a single of the former.

Challi 2 also has TES from that incident, also we use defensive tactics, but a defence now is a very asymmetric situation, so getting the trini-tank is needed (armour, mobility, weapons), do yeah, not defensive, just defensive tactics

2:53 not only that, think from the perspective of the enemy tank- "where should I shoot at?" 1. At the hull, it will probably kill the driver and imobilize the tank. 2. At the turret, where the commander and gunner are located.

@zoxkxr6552

2 жыл бұрын

Dont forgett that the turret houses the gun wich is a danger to you

We're kind of chafing against the definition of defense here.

In my opinion The best way to make a tank light but well protected in most part of armour, u can put some armour on the hull and torret, and incrise protection whit ERA blocks.

Arguably every tank is a defensive tank because tanks are good at defending countries while planes are good at damaging the enemy while sucking at defence (in terms of they can’t hold the line)

Check backward speed for Soviet tanks: Much much lower, that NATO tanks. Soviet tanks: offensive operation focus NATO: offensive and defensive balance

I would also point out that this myth likely comes from people not understanding doctrine. For most cold war NATO tanks were massivly outnumbered by WP armour. So doctrine was to defend(statically and dynamically) and fall back and bleed WP armoured force and then counterattack with superior force once the WP attack lost its momentum. And it makes sense, it takes(most military theorist agree) 3:1 advantage to attack strongly defended positions. And from this most people take that NATO was only for static defence and ignore entire picture.

@hazardous458

4 жыл бұрын

Astoran No, red effect just doesn’t know how defending with a tank actually works.

Nice video about tanks and clearly explaining thanks 👍👍

The Best defense is the Best offence- they cant attack your land when they have to deal with you attacking their land

I love when gamers think they know more than Army doctrine

Red Effect, this is the second video I've seen from you in a short while were it is clear you did no actual research. First was Javelin, where you completely misrepresented how the Javelin flies, something easily found in a US Army manual. You've done that again here. In ATP 3-20.15, Tank Platoon, the operations portion is split evenly into defensive and offensive operations. And if you go to pages 4-33 and 4-34, you can see that it is US Army doctrine to dig deliberate defilade positions when on defense. The reason why the Iraqis were devastated is because they couldn't see the US tanks, not because they dug-in. They would've been killed faster on the bare desert, that's pretty damn obvious. Therefore, it is US doctrine to hide the weaker hull in a hull-down position. Saying thats "Not a good idea" is completely something you came up with based on a wrong understanding of why the Iraqis lost (which is strange because in past videos you always emphasized their inferior fire control and optics, the true issue). NATO nations still teach fighting from a hull-down position, their gunnery ranges literally are designed to have to tank move up from behind cover to fire. So maybe you're right and every NATO armor doctrine is wrong, but I don't think so.

@jackvony5615

4 жыл бұрын

@Shekelton He states hull-down defense is not a good idea. His exact words and goes on to imply no one does it because of what happened to Iraq in the Gulf. My point is that's totally false. He debunk the larger idea of "defense only" tanks but he doesn't need to say things that aren't true to do it. I referenced US Army small unit armor doctrine to show hull-down is not just still a viable defense tactic, it is the defense tactic of choice.

@mrspeigle1

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah it's kind of silly, after all what's better than 500 mm frontal armor? 500 mm of frontal armor behind 3M of dirt

@KSmithwick1989

4 жыл бұрын

This video fails to differentiate from static defense and mobile defense. Exploiting a hull-down position is significant part of NATO strategy, as it allows for defensive over watch. Which can be accompanied either by friendly armor advancing or a conducting tactical retreats. It's basically the armor equivalent of infantry leap-frogging and peeling.

@alexisbierquedebirkadefauv1744

4 жыл бұрын

The only thing dumb he said was that Hulldown was useless Apart than that, he was debunking the idea that a few tanks are made ONLY for defense

@jackvony5615

4 жыл бұрын

@@alexisbierquedebirkadefauv1744 That's my point though. He's being lazy. He's using dumb arguments. While I may agree with the larger argument, the way his recent videos are arguing is just poor. So I don't really care if hes right on if no tanks are meant for defense. I care that he is using straight up lies.

The concept of a “defensive tank” completely defeats the point of a tank

You have defensive Artilery and cannons. For defense were Those Super Armor protected Tank Destroyers, with Powerfull Guns, Uber armor, ready to withstand lots of damage. Bunkers are also One of the Best defensive strategy. Mines, boobie traps, anti Air Guns and Artilery. Seeker missiles. Laser cannons both in ships and large planes. MBT's could be used for defense, but can easily be flanked and as a standing target is not good.

Don't jump from one extreme to the other. "Attack" does not mean "drive around openly without any cover" and "defensive" does not mean "dug in to complete immobility" That is, and I agree on that point, not what western tanks were made for. But they were indeed optimized for specific tactics and those tactics were, in the cold war era, mainly defensive. While the main tactic was, to be precise, not the defense but the delay. Therefore both Leopards for example had high acceleration to jump from one cover to the other, being exposed to enemy fire for only a short time. They also had hig reverse speeds for that kind of fight. They were not intended to be dug in but they were, yes, intended to fight from cover whenever possible. Even in the attack a halfway sane crew would not just drive through the open terrain. So while I agree with you on the most part, it is your extreme definition of a "defensive" tank that I do not agree with.

I had a puff up Infantry LT keep picking on me in Soldier Qual because I'm armoured. He was so salty. Every time he was teaching tactics and being on the defensive, he would look at me and end the sentence with "and you know what can't hold ground? Tanks." I dream about hitting his little trench with HE every night. All that training... one little button and its all gone. hahaha

Nice video bro

People say this about the challenger all of the time

could you make a vid about the s-tank

@sajedm9156

4 жыл бұрын

viktor sahlin svenne torsk

Great Video

Hey, I recognize that old airfield in the first Abrams clips. It is in Tapa, Estonia. USA was stationed there during the time when I was serving Artillery Battallion.

It is always also a doctrinal question best example is the Leo 2a7 the Bundeswehr uses it in combined Arms as a delaying Force in defence as you can see in the Videos of the yearly ILÜ exercises that are held by the Bundeswehr

@synthilein

4 жыл бұрын

Schreib beim nächsten mal "annual" statt yearly

@captainicarus9525

4 жыл бұрын

ＳＹＮＴＨ Ｗ ＡＶＥ der Lehrer :'D

Hey red, are the gun bore is very easy to destroy? I think if i disable the tank gun, it would be very great in modern warfare, so whats a great weapon to disable the gun?

are you willing to do a video on the T-55 and its various improvements? particularly the T-55AM and Slovenian M-55S packages?

Hi RedEffect, I just found out about your channel and it gave me new knowledge in tanks. I was wondering, would you be so kind to make a video about Indonesian - Turkey tank (Harimau) and discuss about its flaws? I'm curious about this as I'm from Indonesia. Cheers ^_^

People forget that the best defens is a good offens

While I agree that no tank is purely defensive in nature I think you are overlooking that there are tanks that fighting from defensive positions was paramount. Most notably Chieftain, M60, and AMX-30 to name a few largely because NATO tanks where expected to fight in defensive positions on the fulda gap. On the other side of iron curtain Soviet tanks gave excellent all around protection but had poor gun depression and elevation because Soviet doctrine stressed rapid blitzkrieg tactics to overwhelm the enemy.

We would have open engagements but if you could seek out a battle position where you are hull down That is your best option if I could choose between a hull down position and out in the open it would definitely be hull down not because the armor is bad but because you are less of a target

The only tank ive ever heard called a defensive tank was the stv 103 in which case that was kind of their whole plan

I think when people say “defensive tank” they mean more emphasis is put on defense than whatever is the average or baseline, not that it is designed entirely for much less only capable of defensive fighting

I'm pretty sure that you can design an mbt and still have it made in a way that is more effective for defense than offense without losing the things that make it an mbt.

This is the 2nd video now where I don't think you have given either challengers a fair shake. In your top tanks of the cold war video you talked about the poor armour on the front of the challenger 1 but failed to mention at all that they got ERA and add on armour plates. They had those options fitted and tested by the year that you talked about them but made no mention of it, the Chobam armour is the same as used in the Abrahms tank yet you rated it's armour as being much better. The challenger 2 was penetrated by an RPG 29 tandem warhead, however the armour was strong enough that the blast only had enough energy after penetrating the armour to blow off 3 toes from the driver. So not only did he survive sitting right behind the armour plate that got penetrated but he didn't even lose his leg, the armour was sufficient to save that mans life from a purpose built anti tank tandem warhead. Oh by the way no other damage to the challenger was caused by this hit and the tank drove away under it's own power. The tank has had extensive upgrades to it's armour tanking it's weight well over 70 tons, it has ERA and spaced armour options available either of which have been fitted depending on the situation. It has been hit with dedicated anti tank missiles such as the RPG 29 and a MILAN anti tank missile and has not been destroyed. The challenger 2 has been in heavy combat many times and has never been lost or destroyed due to enemy fire, it's not like a lot of tanks that you mention to have better protection yet have never been anywhere near a battlefield. It is battle tested tried and true and is undefeated in combat! It is an aging tank now and I would never claim they are the best in the world anymore but in their prime they were top of the food chain. The challenger 1 is still in service with Oman or Jordan, I forget which one we sold them all to.

@HMSNeptun

4 жыл бұрын

the tank does perform well in asymmetrical warfare due to its protection against HEAT and ability to fire HESH shells. but the rifled gun is inferior to smoothbore gun in terms of armor penetration. that means that it probably wont perform as well in combat against equal tanks like the T90M. just opinion tho

@spacefx1340

4 жыл бұрын

@@HMSNeptun Once you have Air superiority that said smoothbore is useless, if i was a commander i wouldn't send my tanks to vs each other when i can just nuke tanks from the sky all day in any weather condition, and let the tanks bully the enemy infantry, with no armour support said infantry wont last long.

@hanz5555

4 жыл бұрын

I can be wrong but Chobham on CR2s and Abrams isnt the same ifaik. CR2 use new 2nd gen Dorchester and M1s still use Burlington (1st gen) with added DU plates.

@commanderdon4300

4 жыл бұрын

@@hanz5555 Yes that's right the Challenger 1 has the Chobham and the Challenger 2 has the Dorchester armour which is better and we didn't even give that version to the Abrams. So my point was how can he rate the Abrams armour so much better than the Challenger 1 when they had the same armour tech, and the Challenger 2 when it had next generation armour.

@hanz5555

4 жыл бұрын

@@commanderdon4300 Because Abrumz is da best tonk on the wolrd and some stupid brit cant be better because muuurica.. ehm ehm.. (That was just a reaction on that freaboo comenting above you) Anyway. Americans got mad bacause brits ddint give them Dorchester so they weld some radioactive DU plates on top of it soo they have somewhat better armor than 1st gen chobham BUT i dont know how it is compared to Dorchester (nobody does because its top sercret). Somewhere i head it has better kinetic protection and a bit worse chemical, another guy says its weaker in everything...I dont know.

I think many ppl misinterpreted what red said. He's not saying that going hull down is bad or anything. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think his point is that staying in a "hull-down" position in the same spot for too long is probably not a good idea as seen on iraqi T-72 tanks. So the tank has to be flexible with terrain and find more spots to shoot from and to go hull down. He's trying to state that nato tanks are actually more versatile by having more turret protection than what people argue about the bad hull protection as the turret is the area that they are more likely to be hit. So, idk maybe just slightly bad paraphrasing?

Regarding NATO defensive tanks. I always understood the tactical doctrine of the West was to build larger tanks that have the ability to fight closed (because tactical nuclear bombs would be used) relatively geographically static (not dug in) for weeks on end. It was assumed that western Europe will be would not be able to have defense lines that stopped USSR armored thrusts, so it was therefor expected for western tanks deployed in the west to have to fight behind the lines without support for long periods on end , before US armored forces will arrive in Europe to push back the USSR forces. In effect they are designed for defense on a overall theater perspective, but still offensive on the battleground.

well the type 90 was designed as a defensive tank because at the time it was being produced, the jsdf was not allowed to fight anywhere over seas.

there's a lot of talk about the Strv103 inthe comments, and people denying it's built for defense. it's very clearly built for defense. it has massively prioritized reversing speed to be able to get out of dodge in the "not attacking" direction. it has sacrificed the abillity to effectively shoot and scoot by not having a turret. it's armoured properly in one direction. it's essentially the perfect ambush machine, at the price of being just about usefull for the rest. in real life conditions sure you can work around the fact that you have to stop and turn to fire, sure you can scout ahead to limit time to bear guns on target, you have to accept that any ambush will go unpunished or bog you down on a road march. it's a defensive tank.

Hey, how about the "Tank Arena" its been so longcsince you apload theclast one?

Ofc the tactic change the building of the tank. If the tank is made to figth from figthing position or to attack on line. In one part the smaller look will help and on the other part you want to have depression and good armor on the turrent. That is how the company or battalion would figth. That does not mean that the division or army would be offensiv or deffensiv. Its just how the tank as A tank would be made to figth.

I think it comes down to some tanks being more capable in defensive role when need or allow for mobile defense. The Tiger 1 tanks and Panther Tanks were fighting a defensively a lot but it was mobile defense. Basically driving from sector to sector trying defend against allied attack routes or covering key choke points but they were always moving and reposition until they were able to join another counter offensive attempt. Some tanks just trade a bit of speed for a little more protection. But it doesn't mean the tanks can't go on the offensive either they might not go as fast due to being heavier or fuel demanding potentially its just such vehicles need to be supported more. The Tiger tanks of world war 2 needed to support the smaller panzer 4s and 3s but intern needed the faster panzers to support it from flanking attacks or anti tank infantry. All though its less common with modern mbts that can work independent battalions comfortably their still is Ifvs and apcs supporting them to an extent. Some tanks maybe better offensively because the trade some armour for speed and firepower. Being able zip around enemy tanks to doing a drive by shooting to jokingly exaggerate capabilities. But doesn't mean more offensive oriented tanks can't play defensively. Its some designs may be better suited the offensive and defensive roles or some are well balanced equally. Yes we don't really used turret less assault guns anymore which specifically defensive or only in a support role for soldiers in an offensive engagement or supporting tanks. This just my opinion of how Interpret Offensive versus Defensive tanks. What design features gives it a bit more of advantage in certain situations. Most MBTs try to stay with in the so called holy triangle of balanced firepower, protection and mobility. But we see movement with in those parameters but its not as drastic as it was when heavy tanks were still a thing. As MBTs are well rounded but some designs invest a little more into 1 or 2 or 3 elements of the supposed holy triangle. Because in reality tanks are complex machines and there's more to simply being well protected, having good fire power or armour to shrug of enemy rounds. I am just stating my opinion I am not trying to say I am factually correct. I just take it some designs invested a little more certain aspects of the tank. Yes T72s,T80s and T90s to an extent may seem like sports cars of the tank realm flying around at 65kms plus on roads easily or gliding trough muddy terrain for the most part. They are that way because are a lot lighter than a lot of Nato tanks only weighing like 40 tons or 45 tons compared the new Armata 55 tons but even still that isn't to bad when you think about its 2 tons lighter than Tiger 1. But Russia traded armour protection for tanks that it could deploy rapidly on the battlefield while making mass production easier. Ah 40 ton mbt is better for logistics and transportation. Wheres a 65 ton challenger might not be able to reach as high off road speeds but has better protected areas even with obvious weak points. Do trade mobility a bit to be a little better protected or trade weight and protection for more speed as military.

The Canadian "Chimera" tank destroyer prototypes from the 80's can be described as modern tanks designed just for defensive operations. It is debatable whether they were tanks or tank destroyers.

The Merkava was designed for defending Israelian ground. It should perfectly do only this one task. They did not primarily think about attacking other countries with it while they designed the tank.

a video about tanks where the sponsor is a game on tanks.....and the ad I got is from world of tanks .....TANKCEPTION

Can you make video about Chinese ERA? Although information is hard to come by but can you please try? Thank you so much. Keep up the good work 😊

@Alex-zg7vq

4 жыл бұрын

As far as i know chinese ERA is reverse engineered soviet ERA so you can pretty much compare chinese ERA with soviet ERA

@Alex-zg7vq

4 жыл бұрын

@Ace of Spades well, depends on how much they changed on the newer model.

@Burner.Account..

4 жыл бұрын

@Ace of Spades It depends on who's doing it and what's the item that's reverse engineered. Modifications and further testing based on the original can improve the product. And since ERA is a bit simpler than combat grade jet engines, China is more than capable to at least produce something comparable to the original. Most of the time when you think about Chinese made products are cheap and sub-par are usually just commercial products especially aimed at domestic markets that also ended up in exports, like smartphones. They are purposefully made to have lee-way so it could be pumped out and sold cheap, but when they do sit down and dump infinite resources into making something good, they are still very capable.

nice to see you read coment on orther videos to stay in situation and have good content

It's impossible to guide missile low on the ground because there is ground effect. Try it and missile fly little bit, then bounce off an invisible lifting power then correct trajectory violently and slammed into the ground. It's Impossible to aim turret or upper hull then 30-50 m before lower your guidance. Often lost guide or slam into the ground.

Chieftain was a defensive tank fought from a hull down position, that position was where it broke down, L60 engine crap.

I have discovered the glory that is the CoH2 T-70 early game. Great for controlling the map early on and then harassing the big ones later.

I think the concept of the difensive tank was pioneered by Germany during WWII. Some of the last generations of German tanks were too heavy to cross most bridges remaining in Germany. They were designed to hold a position and blunt the swarming hordes of Allied and Soviet troops rather than reconquer Paris and Moscow. By definition an offensive tank was intended to be lighter, faster and more mobile. While on the offense, you can choose when and where to fight. You can avoid points of superior resistance and attack more vulnerable targets. So Basically, if you were defending Berlin, you want a tank that can hold a position against infantry, tanks, artillery and air attack. You pretty much have no place to retreat to. On the other hand, if you were invading Germany, you can choose your target, amass infantry and artillery and call in air cover before attacking the least defended position you can find. You want your tanks to be fast and agile and be able to withdraw as fast as possible if you screw up... I mean you have most of Europe to retreat into if the Berlin thing goes bad and you might want to try again later. So if I were defending the Reichstag I'd want to be in a very heavily armored tank, if I were driving back enemy infantry across vast swaths of Europe and might need to cross bridges or ford marshes, I'd prefer something lighter and more agile. I tend to believe that current Russian doctrine still believes in more agile tanks while NATO doctrine tends to go with more massively armored tanks. Just look at the respective weight of their respective tanks.

I had to wait for soooo long....

"Its a defensive tank!" Translation: *I'm coping and seething*

Western tanks tend to be able to elevate their main gun further down than eastern tanks are. That make them better at shooting from behind a hill, so better defence. That being said, they can of course still be used in a offensive role.

You should read the AirLand battle Doctrine. I think that will help explain this misconception of “defensive tanks” that emerged. Yes NATO designer tanks with defensive tactics in mind, and perhaps that is why the hull armor is weaker as fighting on the defensive means you’re going to be fighting mostly from prepared positions, but I think your argument is 100% correct in that mathematically the turret is the largest risk for getting hit. Focusing on defense rather than focusing on offense means many small but significant changes to things like crossing rivers (soviet tanks and their amphibious attachments). I think someone else’s misconceptions mislead you on your argument here. Rapid response defensive tactics were the main design focus here, not protection requirements so much.

Merkava was solely designed as a defensive tank for Israel everything else it does is extra. It was designed with that low front and good gun depression to fight from hill positions.

@alexisbierquedebirkadefauv1744

4 жыл бұрын

The Merkava was designed to protect against RPGs and ATGMs. And now it evolved into an tank to fight guerrillas and insurgents

While its true that main battle tanks are designed for all sorts of roles, to say some tanks aren't designed with a greater emphasis on defence or offence is flat out wrong. This makes sense, because most nations are somewhat aware of what kind of wars they are likely to face in the future. The most obvious example is probably the Swedish S tank, which completely sacrifices the ability to fire on the move for a lower profile for better defensive operations. You can also argue that most soviet MBT's are designed to be strategically offensive in comparison to the NATO vehicles. Since the soviets expected to be on the offensive in Europe in the event of war, having smaller tanks with less fuel consumption makes a lot of sense when managing supply lines over possibly nuked infrastructure.

Only a hornet with Ap Shell can knock this tanks off

Prolly stopped having defensive tanks when every tank could kill every other tank

Do a video about the joint made tank from germany and france the Leopard-leclerc tank

The way I’ve always said it is that NATO had defense in mind. Not designed for. Obviously they’re multi role vehicles, but US doctrine was entirely around protecting the Fulda gap. Hence the higher reverse speeds, gun depression, and stronger turret armor. Doctrine utilizes a hull down position, but that’s not design.

i was gonna say "ever heard of the STRV103?" realised it's out of service :(

you should make a top 10 list of best tanks in the world

Я рад что реклама Вартандера спонсирует твой канал)

You have A good sponser

TLDR, Tanks are designed to attack, not defend. Even in defensive warfare competent commanders launch counterattacks to counter enemy forces. Guys, the idea of a "tank" originally was meant to break through enemy lines in WWI. This remained true from WWII in Europe all the way up to modern tanks, which all followed the lessons learnt from that war. Tanks evolved, sure, they have become MBTs, meaning that they are versatile and can be used offensively to push through enemy lines OR defend by counter-attacking enemy forces. That why militaries have tank battalions/Heavy tank battalions in WWII which are MOBILE units that can concentrate to form a spearhead and breakthrough lines (with air support) or counter an attacking force by blocking their enemy spearhead attack.

And then there is the T-14 Armata whose designers decided to screw over turret protection.

The Challenger 2 is actually made to be a defensive tank that is literally written into the doctrine.

I mean, obviously you can only put so much armor on a tank, so you have to prioritize. All designs are trade-offs in some way. If you increase armor on the lower hull, you are either adding more weight and so decreasing mobility, or you're decreasing armor on some other part.

Its first time i hear for MBT to be defensive usually that was a tank destroyer or a heavy tank

french tanks (until leclerc) and especially the swedish fixed-gun tank, were designed for defense/defensive skirmishing/ambushing. But yeah, the contemporary tanks definetly arent the case anymore lol

Building a tank always is about compromises. And therefore it is possible to categorize the priority of the vehicle. "offensive" and "defensive" tank is meaning, that there are sacrifices made, in order to better suit one of those purposes. This does not mean, that you can't use them vice versa. Nato tanks, especially in europe have gotten the name defensive, since they are designed to slow down a sowiet attack until the US and propably GB and Canadian forces arrive for an offensive strike. To reach this goal, "defensive" tanks had prority in gun elevation/depression, all around visibility and high manouverability (forwards and backwards). Therefore sacrificing hull armor and low silhouette. The sowjet tank design, as "offensive" system, has priority on frontal armor and small silhouettes, sacrificing gun elevation and allround mobility as well as -visibility (most sowjet tanks have few periscopes facing backwards). Because their tactic would have been to overrun the enemy. Both parties fought the past war in their mind, sticking to what has been proofen successful for them in WW II. I don't think, that one credo is superior to the other (each nation builds their best tank), and i'm glad, that it wasn't put to the test.

Can you please do a video on t72 m4 cz?

Defend your favorite tank, I think that's our main problem,

Still, europea tankers in germany were expected to fight in defense against the soviets, (I think matsimus has made a good video about it). 40 years ago, most european tanks (like Leo 1) had very low protection, but very high mobility, so they relied mostly on camouflage and runaways to survive. That is even more apparent if we compare them with the soviet counterparts: most of their tanks, especially after t 64, had substantially better protection, in both turret and hull, and were expected to be able advance into west germany. Also to support the "defensive" design: good hull armour appeared on western tanks after the end of ussr, when if military action was undertaken by NATO countries, it would most likely be offensive (gulf wars, Iraq, ecc.). That's not to say that they were meant to be bunkers (strv 103 being the exception), but also they were not made with tanks on tanks battles in open battlefields as the optimal environment for most of the cold war (of course in the later years, things like abrams or challengers came to be) So I think the point is valid, because when people say they were made for defense, it's quite accurate, and most importantly, It doesn't mean they were made to stay in place full stop, but to stay hidden and use the terrain that you already know as an advantage

Ahh yes, i subsribed to this myth, thank yuo comrade.

Well RedEffect sadly you're wrong. Bob Semple is one of the most successful design of defense tank to deter any Emus invasion.

My question is why does the armarta tank have the engine in front??

Im Surprised you did not mention the Strv 103. Since while its not a "modern" tank its probably the MBT that is most often wrongly called a purely defensive Tank. (To the point where some refuse to even consider it a Tank) Despite the fact that it was designed to operate both on the Offense and Defense. And Since Armored Brigades where Seen as the main offensive force of the Swedish Army and was tasked with attacking Soviet Bridgeheads in order to attempt to crush them before they could land enough troops to secure it (Since The Swedish Armored Forces knew very well that the only chance of defeating a Soviet invasion without outside aid would be to either prevent them from landing in the first place or to crush the bridgeheads quickly) Since if the Soviets managed to secure a bridgehead where they could just funnel troops into they could quickly land enough troops to where it would be impossible for the Swedish Army to push them out alone. And in view of that it makes no sense that Sweden would adopt a tank designed purely for Defense (As it goes against the entire doctrine of the Swedish Armored force at the time)

@rowanwild8445

4 жыл бұрын

Mattebubben Strv 103 was meant to repel sworms of T-54/55/62 soviet tank designs from invading the nothern regions, not exactly take over strategic positions from pakistan rebels in the middle east. Thing that a *main battle tank* should be capable to do, as the MBT philosophy has been since the Centurion to reunite tank destroyer, heavy tank, medium tank roles and often even light tanks roles in modern days. I don't think the 103 reunite those conditions

@kirgan1000

3 жыл бұрын

@@rowanwild8445 Look at the map where the tank regementen where stationed, most was placed at Scania (Southern Sweden) one on Gotland, one Skövde (central Sweden) and only one was in Norrland. Why? Becuse Scania is one of the few places where are suitable for a amphibious landing, and the tank regiments was suposed to press on and continue the attack agenst the bridgehead at all cost, a very offencive and aggresive doctrine.

@rowanwild8445

3 жыл бұрын

@@kirgan1000 I'm not saying that this tank isn't capable of offensive operations. It is, thanks God. But it definitely isn't capable of any form of urban warfare whatsoever for example. Something that as a *MBT* designated system, it is the only one incapable of among them.

...cool information.

One of the differences in the design of the Abrams and the Leopard 2, that Americans point out, is that the Leopard 2 was more focused towards sitting as far away from the enemy as possible and shooting them so they could defend Germany. Whereas the Abrams had greater side protection with 68% more Special armor coverage(early days) which would enable them to carry out offensive operations against the Russians. In other words they Germans just didn't want the Soviets to come in, the Americans wanted to take the fight to them.